Scriptures Fit for a King

This paper examines the use of translational doublets (multiple translations of a single expression presented together in a translated text) in the revised text of the Later Version of the Wycliffite Bible found in Oxford University MS. Bodley 277 (1420s or 1430s). The manuscript in question contains a large number of doublets found in no other copy of the Wycliffite Bible, and these appear to be the contributions of an independent revisor. The various functions that doublets have in this text are discussed, and it is argued that, in his use of doublets, the revisor focused primarily on clarifying or explaining details of the text’s literal, immediate meaning, especially in Old Testament historical books. It is suggested, moreover, that a large proportion of the revisor’s doublets reflect the interests of an aristocratic or royal audience, in line with the probable origin of MS. Bodley 277 (which was once owned by King Henry VI). Special attention is paid to the apocryphal 3 Ezra, for which Bodley 277 is the only copy of the Wycliffite Bible to include translational doublets and which appears in no other manuscript of the Later Version.

Shakespeare's Historiography

<p>This study explores, in a sixteenth century context, the historical thought and consciousness of a selection of Shakespeare's English history plays. Looked at in relation to contemporary historiographical works, it is concluded that the plays in question qualify as a form of dramatic historiography both transitional and progressive in nature. The study, after considering some aspects of Tudor historiography relevant to Shakespeare and his drama in the introductory chapter, goes on in Chapter One to explore Shakespeare's Henry VI sequence. My discussion finds that the interaction of the roles and requirements of both dramatist and historian has two important results: firstly an emerging awareness of the impossibility of presenting the historical "truth"; and secondly an appreciation that the (re)construction of a linear historical narrative (dramatisation), especially when developed from diverse Chronicle accounts, requires the dramatist/historian's critical and historical judgement concerning probability. Also observed in this chapter is the drama's capacity for making character as much a part of history as event. In Chapter Two Shakespeare's Richard III is juxtaposed with its main source, Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III. These texts provide a springboard for discussion of the tradition of oral history and the problems associated with its use as a source for authoritative historiography, and the apparent resemblance between the historian's and lawyer's pursuit of the "truth". The methods and principles of the courtroom are intimately related to those used by the dramatist/historian. The final chapter couples the anonymous history play Edward III with Shakespeare's most sophisticated history, Henry V. In this chapter I first discuss the growing sixteenth century distinction between poetry (the medium of the history play) and historiography. The history presented in Edward III is interrupted and disrupted by the "poetic" interlude of King Edward's residence at the Countess of Salisbury's castle; I argue that the play (ironically, given its own status as verse drama) privileges "history" at the expense of "poetry". In Henry V, in contrast, there is evidence of a conceptual shift in the use and perception of history. Here, also, is found the full realisation of the ineluctable evasiveness of historical "truth" through the contradictory accounts of the Chorus and the stage action, and the opacity of King Henry.</p>

Shakespeare's Historiography

<p>This study explores, in a sixteenth century context, the historical thought and consciousness of a selection of Shakespeare's English history plays. Looked at in relation to contemporary historiographical works, it is concluded that the plays in question qualify as a form of dramatic historiography both transitional and progressive in nature. The study, after considering some aspects of Tudor historiography relevant to Shakespeare and his drama in the introductory chapter, goes on in Chapter One to explore Shakespeare's Henry VI sequence. My discussion finds that the interaction of the roles and requirements of both dramatist and historian has two important results: firstly an emerging awareness of the impossibility of presenting the historical "truth"; and secondly an appreciation that the (re)construction of a linear historical narrative (dramatisation), especially when developed from diverse Chronicle accounts, requires the dramatist/historian's critical and historical judgement concerning probability. Also observed in this chapter is the drama's capacity for making character as much a part of history as event. In Chapter Two Shakespeare's Richard III is juxtaposed with its main source, Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III. These texts provide a springboard for discussion of the tradition of oral history and the problems associated with its use as a source for authoritative historiography, and the apparent resemblance between the historian's and lawyer's pursuit of the "truth". The methods and principles of the courtroom are intimately related to those used by the dramatist/historian. The final chapter couples the anonymous history play Edward III with Shakespeare's most sophisticated history, Henry V. In this chapter I first discuss the growing sixteenth century distinction between poetry (the medium of the history play) and historiography. The history presented in Edward III is interrupted and disrupted by the "poetic" interlude of King Edward's residence at the Countess of Salisbury's castle; I argue that the play (ironically, given its own status as verse drama) privileges "history" at the expense of "poetry". In Henry V, in contrast, there is evidence of a conceptual shift in the use and perception of history. Here, also, is found the full realisation of the ineluctable evasiveness of historical "truth" through the contradictory accounts of the Chorus and the stage action, and the opacity of King Henry.</p>

John Hardyng

The English chronicler John Hardyng (b. 1378–d. c. 1465) had a colorful career before settling down to write his two versions of British history in the 1450s and 1460s. Born in Northumberland, he served in the household of Sir Henry Percy (b. 1364–d. 1403) from the age of twelve, where he learnt the art of warfare and fought in numerous battles, including the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403). Later, he served Sir Robert Umfraville, fighting alongside him in Scotland and in the first years of Henry V’s French campaign (1415–1416). In 1418 Henry V sent Hardyng to Scotland to survey the topography of the realm and seek out evidence of English overlordship. Promised a substantial gift for his espionage, Hardyng returned after three and a half years, but Henry V’s untimely death deprived him of his prize. He remained unrewarded until the 1440s, when Henry VI honored the late king’s promise and granted Hardyng an annuity. By this time Hardyng’s patron, Sir Robert, was dead and Hardyng had taken up residence in the Augustinian Priory at Kyme, Lincolnshire. It was here that he began writing his first account of British history in Middle English verse. Surviving in a single manuscript, which was presented to Henry VI and his family in 1457 along with a map of Scotland and several of the Scottish documents recovered for Henry V, Hardyng’s Chronicle draws primarily on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae, Robert Mannyng’s Chronicle, and a Latin Prose Brut to give an account of British and English affairs from the mythical founding of Britain by Brutus to 1437. Using the historical issue of English hegemony over Scotland as an ideological touchstone to unite divided Englishmen, the Chronicle sought to promote unity amidst the social, economic, and political instability that precipitated the Wars of the Roses. Within a few years of presenting the work and receiving another reward for his service, Hardyng began revising the text for Henry VI’s political rival, Richard, duke of York. The second Chronicle rewrote history to explain York’s superior claim to the throne, but it retained Hardyng’s call for unity among Englishmen and continued to use the issue of Scottish independence as a means of rallying his peers against a common foreign enemy. When the duke of York died in December 1460, Hardyng continued revising his text for York’s son, Edward IV, who took the throne from Henry VI in March 1461. Though Hardyng died before completing his revised narrative, numerous copies of the near-complete chronicle circulated in and around London in the 1460s and 1470s, helping to explain the Yorkist pedigree. It was the second version of the Chronicle that influenced Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur and which was later taken up by the Tudor printer Richard Grafton, who issued two prints in 1543 because of its relevance to the Anglo-Scottish wars in his own time. Grafton’s prints ensured the popularity of the Chronicle among Tudor historiographers and its influence on later writers, such as Shakespeare, Spenser, and Milton.

Sir John Fortescue i narodziny angielskiej teorii konstytucyjnej

Sir John Fortescue, Chancellor of King Henry VI is the first writer to analyse the political system of England by referring to English political practice. Long before Montesquieu, he noticed the relationship between the political system and the social conditions of his country. Explaining the nature of the English constitution and law, he compare it with the political and legal devices of other countries. That is why he contrasts the systems based on Roman law with English common law. In the article, the author argues that the basis of the Fortescue’s reflection is the rejection of Roman law, because he defends the English political tradition against the continental concept of sovereignty.